Geospatial data about Grant County, Wisconsin Parcel Zoning. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Arkansas Townships. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Washington Addresses. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Title 23 of the Grant County Code is comprised of Chapters 23.04 – Zoning Districts, 23.08 – Performance and Use-specific Standards, and 23.12 – Development Standards, and official zoning maps, and shall be known as the zoning code of Grant County, Washington.The zoning code is intended to carry out the goals and policies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, and to benefit the public as a whole and not any specific person or class of persons. The zoning code classifies, designates, and regulates the development of land for agriculture, mineral resource extraction, residential, commercial, industrial, recreation, tourism and public land uses for the unincorporated area of Grant County.Last update1/17/2020 – Comprehensive plan amendments of 2019:Parcel 201542000 converted from Urban Commercial 2 to Urban Residential 1Parcel 201358008 converted from Rural Residential 1 to AgriculturalParcel 160788000 converted from Rural Residential 1 to Urban Residential 2Parcel 151107000 converted from Rural Residential 1 to AgriculturalParcel 170983000 converted from Rural Remote to Urban Heavy IndustrialParcel 313169000 converted from Rural Urban Reserve to Urban Commercial 2Parcel 211912000 converted from Agricultural to Rural Residential 15/17/2019 – the boundary between AG and RC was corrected to follow the north parcel line of 201370001. The parcel boundary of 201370001 had changed in 2007 but the zoning wasn’t adjusted at that time.3/25/2019 – small areas within the Desert Aire open space area were corrected because they were inadvertently missed during the 7/2/2018 update.1/17/2019 - a small portion of Desert Aire zoning was changed from RVOC to RVC.8/1/2018 – minor designation errors were corrected.7/2/2018 – a new Comprehensive Plan was adopted.

The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The All Roads Shapefile includes all features within the MTDB Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in MTDB tha begin with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Wisconsin Roads. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

WDFW’s “Shrubsteppe and Eastside Steppe General Locations” datasets shows the general location of shrubsteppe and eastside steppe as defined by WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species program. The map shows where WDFW recommends counties and cities require site-scale information be gathered to inform site-scale land use decisions. It is the best available information regarding the general location of shrubsteppe and Eastside steppe in Washington – and it has important limitations. It is appropriate to use this map for its primary purpose: to identify where site-specific data should be gathered to inform site-scale decisions. It is also appropriate to expect that on-the-ground conditions will vary from this general information. The map relies upon several GIS layers that are maintained by other agencies and updated at various intervals. This map is updated episodically when input layers are updated with the most current information. WDFW data experts, in consultation with subject matter experts and Habitat Program’s Chief Scientist, may without prior notice, update the map (e.g., input data, methodology) to reflect the best available information, best available science, and evolving values and policies. While this is the best available information with respect to the location of shrubsteppe and Eastside steppe in Washington, it has important limitations that users should understand. Challenges of Scale: The fundamental building block of this map is USGS’ 2016 Landfire Remap Existing Vegetation Type (click here for more information). The great benefit of this data is that it provides comprehensive, wall-to-wall coverage of the state. The primary drawbacks of this layer are that it (a) is comprised of 30-meter square pixels (0.22 acres) and (b) is designed to be used when zoomed out to a regional scale. USGS recommends users zoom in no closer than a scale of 1:5,000 (at this scale, a map on a piece of 8½ by 11-inch piece of paper with 1” margins covers 230 acres). A map at this scale is of little use for many important land use decisions (e.g., regarding development, restoration) which occur on a parcel scale – around 1 acre plus or minus. WDFW created this map and explanation of its proper use to inform parcel-scale land use decisions made by local governments and other conservation partners in a way that takes advantage of the benefits of the regional data while working within its limitations. USGS’ Use Limitations: USGS has a carefully worded statement on use limitations for this data. The statement in full reads: Although LANDFIRE products are delivered as 30-meter pixels, they should not be used at the individual pixel level or on small groups of pixels. LANDFIRE products were designed to support 1) national (all states) strategic planning, 2) regional (single large states or groups of smaller states), and 3) strategic/tactical planning for large sub-regional landscapes and Fire Management Units (FMUs) (such as significant portions of states or multiple federal administrative entities). The applicability of LANDFIRE products to support fire and land management planning on smaller areas will vary by product, location, and specific use. Further investigation by local and regional experts should be conducted to inform decisions regarding local applicability. However, it is the responsibility of the local user, using LANDFIRE metadata and local knowledge, to determine if and/or how LANDFIRE can be used for particular areas of interest. LANDFIRE products are not intended to replace local products, but rather serve as a back-up by providing wall-to-wall cross-boundary products. It is the responsibility of the user to be familiar with the value, assumptions, and limitations of LANDFIRE products. Managers and planners must evaluate LANDFIRE data according to the scale and requirements specific to their needs.(emphasis added) Mindful of these limitations, WDFW experts have investigated the Landfire data and determined that applying it at a parcel-scale to inform decisions described herein is a proper use of the data. Appropriate Uses:While it is appropriate to use this data as described below, it is also important for users to realize that it is appropriate to expect that on-the-ground conditions will vary from this general information. This is because this data reflects many sources that depict ecological systems, roads, agricultural lands, buildings, waterbodies, railroads, and airports. Users should consider that (a) each source has its own date when the data was gathered, (b) each source has a scale at which it was gathered and for which it is intended to be used, (c) the differing projections of these data sources can cause features to be offset from the location shown, and (d) each source has known errors of omission and commission (meaning that the GIS layer may miss on-the-ground features or may show features that do not actually exist on the ground). These variances do not invalidate the data to be used as described below. It is appropriate to use this data to identify where site-specific data should be gathered to inform site-scale decisions. (WDFW strongly recommends that site-scale land use decisions be informed by site-scale data.) a) The land use decision under consideration drives the precise type of site-specific information to be gathered (e.g., shrubsteppe presence/absence, boundary, quality), methods used to gather it, and qualifications of the person gathering it. b) Where this regional data shows higher variability (i.e., smaller patches or more pixelated appearance), a rapid shrubsteppe assessment (rather than a more extensive assessment) may be appropriate to confirm or refute the presence of shrubsteppe. It is appropriate to presume that places indicated as shrubsteppe are shrubsteppe and that places that are not indicated as shrubsteppe are not shrubsteppe. a) This presumption is stronger where the layer shows a high degree of uniformity of shrubsteppe (or non-shrubsteppe); it is weaker where there is less uniformity. b) For a specific site, this presumption should yield to the professional opinion of a qualified person with first-hand knowledge and/or reliable site-specific data of the site. It is appropriate to use this information to broadly estimate aspects of shrubsteppe (a) spatial attributes such as patch size and interior vs. edge, (b) connectivity (e.g., with other shrubsteppe, cliffs, dunes, etc.), and (c) restoration potential (to the extent that restoration potential is related to proximity to large or more uniform patches of shrubsteppe). Such estimates, when derived by qualified persons using reasonable methods, should be presumed to be valid. Inappropriate uses: To clarify appropriate uses, we identify some inappropriate uses of the “Shrubsteppe and Eastside Steppe General Locations” map. These examples are not exhaustive. It is inappropriate to assume that the pixelated edges represent the actual edge of shrubsteppe (a site-scale boundary evaluation is needed for this purpose). Where there is variation in pixels (i.e., smaller patches or more pixelated appearance), it is inappropriate to assume that the individual or small groups of pixels of shrubsteppe or non-shrubsteppe represent the precise location of shrubsteppe and non-shrubsteppe areas (a site-scale evaluation of the existence/extent of shrubsteppe is needed for this purpose). It is inappropriate to consider this modeled information to be accurate when appropriately gathered, site-scale data, or the professional judgment of an informed, qualified person says otherwise.

This imagery service is for viewing only, no downloading of the raster images available.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Wisconsin Municipal Boundaries. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This application can be used to help determine if an applicant's project meets the low/moderate income threshold for eligibility to be funded under the Lake County Illinois Community Development Block Grant program.

This map provides the location of the original land grants within present day Loudoun County from the early 1700s to early 1800s. To view a list of sortable attributes of the information, please click on the Table button in the upper right corner of the map. For additional details, please visit here.

These are the original grantings of land within the Northern Neck Proprietary by Thomas, the 6th Lord of Fairfax and/or his agents until the mid 1780s during the settlement of Virginia. The map shows the approximate location of the original land grant as well as information on the grantee, the acreage of the grant (as calculated using the GIS), the year, and additional comments. The map is intended for historical reference only, as insufficient and incomplete original boundary surveys have resulted in potential inaccurate boundaries.

The original research for all of the land grants mapped in this application was completed by historian Wynne Saffer. They were originally mapped on USGS Quadrangles at a scale of 1:24000, then scanned to a digital file and the boundaries digitized by the Loudoun County Office of Mapping and Geographic Information staff.

The orginial land grant research is located at Thomas Balch Library. The land grants can be viewed on microfilm using the Record Number as a reference. This map is also located on the Office of Mapping and Geographic Information online map gallery, which can be found here.

For more information about Loudoun County's GIS, please contact Office of Mapping and Geographic Information.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Arkansas Public Schools. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Linear Water Features includes single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams, and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent feature and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an "H" to indicate the super class of Hydrographic Features.

This layer originated from ZCTAs and has been modified in places by Grant County GIS staff based on input from local US Postal Service staff and landowners.ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs™) are a statistical geographic entity produced by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulating summary statistics from the 2010 Census, first developed for Census 2000. This entity was developed to overcome the difficulties in precisely defining the land area covered by each ZIP Code™, which is necessary in order to accurately tabulate census data for that area.ZCTAs are generalized area representations of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) ZIP Code service areas. They represent the most frequently occurring five-digit ZIP Code found in a given area. Simply put, each ZCTA is built by aggregating 2010 Census blocks, whose addresses use a given ZIP Code. Each resulting ZCTA is then assigned the most frequently occurring ZIP Code as its ZCTA code. For more information, please refer to the ZCTA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

Data from Washington State Department of Ecology. Downloaded from web page http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/data.htm on 3/28/2016.This GIS layer contains bathymetric contours of selected freshwater lakes in Grant County, Washington during the mid-seventies. The bathymetric contours were digitized from maps contained in a series of seven documents: Reconnaissance Data on Lakes in Washington, Water-Supply Bulletin 43, Volume 1 through 7 by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Washington Zoning Boundaries. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Arkansas Roads. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This dataset is a compilation of address point data from Minnesota suppliers that have opted-in for their address point data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 44 suppliers that have opted-in to share their data openly as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Benton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Cook County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Koochinching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Le Sueur County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Otter Tail County, Pipestone County, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Renville County, Rock County, Saint Louis County, Scott County, Sherburne County, Stearns, Stevens County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

The two sources of address point data are the Minnesota Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) Program, in collaboration with local data suppliers, and the MetroGIS Metro Address Points Dataset which is on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons:

The Minnesota NG9-1-1 Program enterprise database provides the data outside of the Metro Region which is provide by the suppliers. The data have been aggregated into a single dataset which implements the MN NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model (https://ng911gis-minnesota.hub.arcgis.com/documents/79beb1f9bde84e84a0fa9b74950f7589/about ).

Only data which have meet the requirements for supporting NG9-1-1 are in the statewide aggregate GIS data. MnGeo extracts the available data, applies domain translations, and transforms it to UTM Zone 15 to comply with the GAC Address Point attribute schema: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/address/address_standard.html.

The MetroGIS Metro Address Points Dataset was created by a joint collaborative project involving the technical and managerial GIS staff from the ten Metropolitan Counties (Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, and Washington), the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, MetroGIS and the Metropolitan Council. The data are pulled in from the Minnesota Geospatial Commons: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-loc-address-points

‘Supplier’ is a term used throughout this document. A supplier will typically be a county, but it could also be a public safety answering point (PSAP), region, or tribal nation. The supplier is the agency which provides the individual datasets for the aggregated dataset. The loc_addresses_open_metadata feature layer will contain the geometry/shape of the supplier boundaries, supplier name, supplier type, and feature count.

Aggregation Process:
1. Transfer NG9-1-1 data from the DPS Enterprise database.
2. Download the latest data from the Geospatial Commons for MetroGIS.
3. Extract, Translate, and Load (ETL) the data to the GAC Address Point Standard schema.
4. Combine NG9-1-1 data with MetroGIS data.
5. Filter the data for the Opt-In suppliers

Road centerlines digitized and maintained by Grant County GIS office.ROADNAMEThe name of the road, without road type or road direction. In capital letters.ROADTYPEThe type of road. Drive, Street, Avenue, Court, Ramp, Road, Driveway, etc.ROADPOSTDIRThe direction of the road. NW, NE, SW, SE.See Grant County Code Title 10 - ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES >> Chapter 10.16 - DESIGNATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTY ROADS >>10.16.010, which in part states: Roads running easterly and westerly, located northerly or southerly of base line, which is the township line between Townships 18 and 19 North, to be numbered beginning with road number one being the road on Section line one mile northerly of, or southerly of, base line, as the case may be; thence one number per section line road numbered consecutively.Roads running northerly or southerly, located easterly of or westerly of meridian line, which is the range line between Ranges 26 and 27 E.W.M., to be designated by letter, the road located on section line one mile easterly of or westerly of said meridian line, as the case may be, being designated by the letter "A"; thence one letter per each section line road lettered consecutively.Intermediate roads running in a cardinal direction within sections shall be designated by the next lower number or letter, followed by the distance in tenths of a mile; for example, a road five and one-half miles north of base line in northwest quadrant would be Road 5.5 N.W.The above described plan divides the county into four quadrants; southwest, northwest, southeast, and northeast. Roads will, in addition to the above described number or letter, carry the appropriate suffix, SW, NW, SE or NE.Diagonal roads or winding roads shall be designated by name, as authorized by the board of county commissioners.ALTROADNAMEA local name or alternative name for the road.FEDROUTEThe Interstate or US Route numberSTROUTEThe State Route numberCTYROUTEA Yes entry indicates it is a County-maintained road. County maintenance responsibility changes often. The data is only as good as the last update from the Public Works Department.FULLNAMEThe full name of the road, including the Road Name, Road Type, and Post Direction. In title case capitalization.ROUTETYPEThe type of transportation route. Interstate, US, State, County, City, Rural, Access, DrivewayCityNameThe Grant County city the road is associated with.

Geospatial data about Grant County, Arkansas Bridges. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.